Randomer Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

I got a good one I just thought of... 

Track the numbers until a neighbour hits and then note down whether the neighbor is north, south, east or west on the carpet. Use cycles to track the directions.

[falkor2k15]

I've thought of an even better Non-Random system that I would like to try one day:

For every spin of the wheel, the ball will land on a different section of the carpet compared to the previous spin/section. It will either:
*Change from one EC to another (High > Low or Low > High); outcome = EC
ELSE
*Change to a different dozen; outcome = dozen
ELSE
*Change to a different Quad; outcome = quad
ELSE
*Change to a different natural Line; outcome = line
ELSE
*Stay in the same line; outcome = same

Optional: street.

So that's 5 outcomes not equally likely that could be wrapped up in cycles. We then have flexibility of betting across multiple positions (or just overlapping areas that are common to whichever outcomes we are able to predict with edge depending on the scenario)

-------------

What's the difference between:
"The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"
and
"so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions)"
?

I think I know the answer - but it should have been emphasised more.

[psimoes]

What's the difference between:
"The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"
and
"so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions)"
?

Constant odds means no edge.
Cause and effect.
All the systems that solely rely on the effect, i. e. the numbers spun, cannot increase the accuracy of predictions on a fair wheel because the odds of the outcomes remain constant. 
Predicting future outcomes with more accuracy must also rely on the cause, i. e. the process by which the oucomes are generated.
Is the wheel fair? Use visual balistics to determine where the ball is about to land.
Is the wheel unfair? Then the odds aren´t constant and there will be biased numbers.

[falkor2k15]

Thanks - but I think we are definitely in need of a more detailed explanation about the "cause" part; have you got time to elaborate in the context of maths/probability rather than physics?

[psimoes]

I´m not an expert on any of those. Only saying that just Math and Probability won´t give you an edge as the cause lies in the Physics. Past spins are still part of the effect and don´t have any influence on the future outcomes. On Roulette at a serious level this is true. For fun playing given all betting possibilities anything goes.

[falkor2k15]

Do you think that Priyanka is able to gain edge because he takes the "cause" part of the fair wheel and put it's "equally likely" outcomes through a non-Random process (i.e. PHP Cycles) that then outputs new biased outcomes that are "not equally likely" so that he can increase predictability on the "effect" part?

[psimoes]

Short answer: NO

[falkor2k15]

Short answer: NO

Fair enough. Anyone care to come up with a better explanation - or might it kill the golden goose?

[falkor2k15]

Before I hit VdW or parallel games I think we need to try to stitch bets away from the position being played as per Priyanka's first ever video in the Random Thoughts topic - also reminiscent of her most recent video. I'm not quite sure yet how to break away from Dozens or Quad cycles whilst they are "cooking", but there's some clues here, which - incidentally - do not describe parallel games but resemble the beginnings of them:

Scarface "I wonder if we take it a step further, could we find some sort of edge.  Maybe, always bet the last 2 dominant, or repeating dozens.  But only play the most recent hit 3 streets from each one (total of 6 streets).   Seems like a good way to catch hot sections being hit."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.330 (page 23)

Scarface "What if we bet the last 3 hit lines in the dozen, instead of the whole dozen.  If a cycle ends with dozen 2 as dominant, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 2 on the first bet.  If dozen 1 hits next, bet the last 3 hit lines in dozen 1 and 2. Seems like there is always 1 line in a dozen that stays cold.  Thought this might increase the odds of a hit better."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.495 (page 34)

Ideally, we want to stitch from the dozens to the Straights - but if we can jump to the lines with edge then that will be an achievement in itself.

BTW, Priyanka seems to have 2 definitions for "stitching bets":
"5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by stringing together your bets. May be!

Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change. But the number of times you hit a winner will increase if you are not just targeting zero but pockets around 0 as well. Thats increasing the accuracy. If you follow a betting plan such that this increased hit rate is giving you a higher edge, why not."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.300

Above Priyanka describes that if we are expecting a bias on, say, 1 particular line - it may be that 2 other lines also have a bias even if the bias is not as strong as the 1 strongest line - but we should still cover the other 2 lines. Let's say CL3 has the strongest bias - but also CL2 has grown in probability - yet CL1 and CL4 has dwindled - is there a way to target both CL2 and CL3 over the other 2?

Does the above definition actually have anything to do with "stitching bets"? If I put a "net" over 3 lines instead of a "hook" on 1 line am I actually stitching bets? I don't think so. Below Priyanka offers the more conventional description of "stitching bets":
"Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1."
"This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

[psimoes]

Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change.

Odds of the game do change. Let´s say on a biased wheel the zero always hits two times every 37 spins. That´d be 35:1 payout for 1:18 odds.

And this has just occurred to me: on a defective wheel the more numbers hit above expectation the colder the non biased numbers will get.
It´s logical.
Now there´s another reason to bet on the hotties!

[falkor2k15]

I guess the bias is constantly shifting depending on the direction that the outcomes take - but it's not humanly possible to keep track of many different combinations - so I guess we have to try to maintain the original PHP cycles framework that kick-started the bias in the first place, and branch out from time to time?

edit: grammar

[falkor2k15]

This is amazing... can you see how they all match up, i.e. they are dependent on each other?


The Low-High cycles often match the Quads; dozens and lines too - sometimes 3 or all 4 different positions are matching:


Elegance or sacred geometry?

[falkor2k15]

Is Scarface mistaken? It should be 66% right?

Scarface "This may help.  Based on the 97 cycles I tested:

1.  38 ended on the first spin

2.  43 ended in 2 spins

3.  16 ended in 3 spins

4.  Based on this, 39% hit on the first spin.  If playing last 2 dozens on the second spin, I would've got a 73% rate.

Stats show better than expected returns.  Not sure if it's due to varience or edge until further testing"
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.345 (page 24)

I got a measly 64%... 

[falkor2k15]

I guess Scarface just had a concentration of variance, as it seems he retested the dozens again and got below 60% for the same bet:

"Ran anot her test of 177 numbers which made up 87 cycles. 

1.  47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%

2.  Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%

3.  Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%

4.  Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%

So, not that great.  Actually under the statistical rate.  But on a brighter note, looking at the numbers in cycles like this has me looking at betting in a whole new way.  Working on an idea now to see how it works out"

[Scarface]

I guess Scarface just had a concentration of variance, as it seems he retested the dozens again and got below 60% for the same bet:

"Ran anot her test of 177 numbers which made up 87 cycles. 

1.  47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%

2.  Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%

3.  Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%

4.  Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%

So, not that great.  Actually under the statistical rate.  But on a brighter note, looking at the numbers in cycles like this has me looking at betting in a whole new way.  Working on an idea now to see how it works out"

Actually, I wasnt betting the cycle lengths.  I was betting which dominant cycle would win.  Bet the last 2 dominant dozens that won.